John MacDonald: Snake oil political promises have just been given a life line

When there’s an election campaign happening, how much do you care about the cost of the policies the political parties are pushing?  

Or, more to the point, how willing are you to trust the politicians when they say they've done the numbers, and they all stack up?  

My willingness to trust them is very low. Which is why I think we will be all the poorer for ACT and NZ First voting down the plan for a publicly-funded outfit that would have done the numbers and worked out the actual cost of election policies.   

Because until now, all we’ve been able to do is take the politicians on their word. And it’s going to stay that way.  

Not that the concept of a separate costing agency is an overnight thing or a new thing. The idea has been around since 2016, when Green MP Metiria Turei first raised it.   

In fact, what she wanted —and what the Labour Party wanted too— was broader than what Finance Minister Nicola Willis eventually proposed to Cabinet. But which is now history thanks to the two minor coalition parties.  

Nicola Willis’ version would have made the government of the day’s financial information available to political parties when they were putting their policies together.  

But even that watered-down version was too much for ACT and NZ First, with David Seymour saying that it isn’t warranted, because he doesn't think it would stop messy election-year debates about how party policies might be paid for.  

But it raises the question about election promises and whether us voters are still sucked in by the political promises on their own, or whether we are more discerning and whether we think it would be good to have more transparency. More scrutiny.  

I want more scrutiny. Because without it, all we have to go on is gut instinct. Or the believability of politicians. All politicians of all stripes and colours I’m talking about here – all we can do is take them on their word. 

Before I hold up National’s tax cuts as an example of why we need a publicly-funded agency to go through political policies with a fine-tooth comb, let me remind of you of that daft idea Labour had before the last election of taking GST off fruit and vegetables. 

At first blush, it might have sounded like a good idea. But I wasn’t sold. I don’t think many of us were, because we had no idea how effective it would be.  

Not just from the perspective of whether it would actually make fruit and veggies more affordable, but also what it could mean for government coffers. Grant Robertson always poo-pooed the idea but then, somehow magically, came around to the idea just before the election.  

And there he was, telling us that he’d done the numbers and he’d realised that, actually, it would have all stacked up financially and we’d all have kiwifruit and broccoli coming out of our ears.  

But without the proof, it was all hot air.  

Same thing with National’s tax cuts. We were told it was going to mean more money in our pockets, but not a lot was said about how out-of-pocket the Government might be because of it, and what that would mean down the track.  

And what happened? The tax cuts went ahead, and government revenue dropped. 

That foreign buyers tax was another one. The only expert analysis we had to rely on was what all the so-called “independent experts” roped-in by all the parties had to say about the policies they were roped-in to comment on.  

And all that did was create all the usual noise and confusion and we were back to voting on gut instinct because who knew what the hell to make of what was being said left, right and centre?  

How different things would be if all of these brilliant vote-catching ideas were put through the wringer by an independent, publicly-funded agency. 

How better informed we woul

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's podcast with John McDonald
from NEWSTALKSB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
You know, when there's an election campaign happening, how much
do you care about the cost of the policies the
political parties are pushing, or I suppose more to the point,
how willing are you to trust the politicians when they say, Oh,
don't worry, I don't worry, We've done the numbers, We're
going to afford this. How prepared are you to trust

(00:35):
them on their word? My preparedness or my willingness to
do that I would rate as being very low, which
is why I think it is absolutely shocking that ACT
and New Zealand First have voted down this plan for
a publicly funded outfit which would have done the numbers

(00:57):
and worked out the actual costs of election policies, the
actual cost of election promises. It had the potential to
work out whether all the talk we get from political
parties and politicians before an election, it had the potential
to work out whether that all stacks up. Thanks to

(01:19):
Acting New Zealand First, oh no, no, thanks to them
doing what they've done, we are going to remain in
the dark and trust me, we will be the poorer
for it, because until now all we've been able to
do is take the politicians on their word and nothing's
going to change. It's going to stay that way. Not

(01:42):
that the concept of a separate costings agency is an
overnight thing or a new thing Act in New Zealand
first not agreeing to it or run pulling the pen
on it this week, that's the new bit. But the
idea has actually been around since twenty sixteen. It was
first raised by Green MP Materia Toure, remember her. In fact,

(02:03):
what she wanted and also the Labor Party wanted originally too,
was broader than what Nicola Willis eventually proposed to cabinet,
but which is sall history now anyway, thanks to the
two minor coalition parties. Nicola Willis's version of the Costing
Unit would have made the Government of the day's financial
information available to the parties when they were putting their

(02:26):
policies together. That still would have meant it would have
been incessible and discoverable. But even that watered down version
that was way too much for Acting His Zealand first,
with David Seymour saying today that it's not warranted because
He doesn't think it would stop messy election year debates
about how party policies might be paid for. That's what

(02:48):
he thinks. But it raises the question, and this is
what I want to explore with you today. It raises
the question about election promises and whether US voters are
still sucked in by the political promises on their own,
or whether these days were a little bit more discerning,
and whether we need a bit more transparency, a bit

(03:12):
more scrutiny, independent scrutiny. That's what I want. I want
more transparency and I want more scrutiny, hands down, because
without it, you know, without that, all we have to
go on is gut instinct or the believability of politicians.
And I'm talking here about politicians of all colors and stripes.

(03:34):
You know, all we can do, all we have to do,
only option is to take them on their word. Now,
before I hold up nationals tax cuts as an example
of why we need a publicly funded agency to go
through political policies with a fine tooth calm. Before you that,
let me remind you of that daft idea Labor had
before the last election of taking gst off fruit and veggies.

(03:56):
Now at first blush, only the first blush. That might
have sounded like a good idea, but I wasn't sold that.
I didn't think I don't think many of us were.
Were we because we had no idea how effective it
would be, not just from the perspective of whether it
would actually make fruit and veges more affordable, but also

(04:16):
what it could mean for the government's coffers. And if
I remember Grant and Roberson, he always poo pooed the
idea of no GST on fruit and veges. But then
somehow magically he came round to the idea just before
the election, and there he was telling us all earnestly
that he'd done the numbers and he'd realize it. Actually,
it would have all stacked up financially, and we'd all

(04:38):
have key we fruit and broccoli coming out of our ears.
But without the proof and without the independent scrutiny, that
was just hot air. Same thing with Nationals tax cuts.
We were told it was going to mean more money
in our pockets, ay, but not a lot was said
about how out of pocket the government might be because
of the tax cuts and what that would mean down

(05:00):
the track, and wo way, Hey, what happened. The tax
cuts went ahead and government revenue dropped at foreign buyers
tax thing. That was another one. So this is the
tivving and froying that David Seymour reckons would happen anyway,
whether you had this independent, publicly funded outfit going through

(05:21):
the numbers or not. But you know, the foreign buyers
tax was another one, the only expert analysis we had
to rely on. Remember, this was all the so called
independent experts roped in by all the parties to have
a say about the policies that they were roped into
comment on, and all that did was create all the
usual noise and confusion, and we were back to voting

(05:42):
on gut instinct because who knew what the hell to
make of what was being said left, right and center.
How different things would be, just imagine it, How different
things would be, ah if all of these brilliant vote
catching ideas were put through the ringer by an independent,
publicly funded agency. How better informed where would all be?

(06:05):
But also how careful the politicians would be too before
they sold us snake oil policies that quite often we
end up regretting falling

Speaker 1 (06:16):
Full For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald listen
live to news talks It'd be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio